Dismissed

Puran Chand Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024A482/6886/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Allahabad High Court dismissed an application under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging a revisional order that remanded a Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. matter for a fresh order. The court held no order compels proposed accused to appear at that stage.

What did the court decide?

The application u/s 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the objection to appear was disposed of; no appearance mandated.

Puran Chand Pathak and 2 Others vs State of U.P… — Criminal Trial and Appeal | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC:110385

¶2

Court No. - 77

¶3

Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 6886 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Puran Chand Pathak And 2 Others Opposite Party :- State of U.P. and Another Counsel for Applicant :- Krishna Kanhaiya Soni Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.

¶5

Hon'ble Samit Gopal,J.

¶6

1. List revised.

¶7

Heard Sri Alok Krishna Tripathi, Advocate holding brief of Sri Krishna Kanhaiya Soni, learned counsel for the applicants, Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned AGA for the State and perused the record.

¶8

The present application under Sections 482 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the applicants Puran Chand Pathak, Devendra Joshi and Vipin Sharma @ Vipin Verma with the following prayers:

¶9

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow this application and quash the order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Joshi Versus State of U.P. etc.), in which criminal revision of the opposite party no. 2 has been allowed.

¶10

It is, further prayed that, this Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to stay the effect and operation of the further as well as entire proceeding of order dated 16.01.2024 passed by Additional Session Judge, Court No. 2, Bareilly in Criminal Revision No. 334 of 2023 (Vinod Kumar Joshi Versus State of U.P. etc.), during the pendency of the present application before this Hon'ble Court.

¶11

And/or pass such other and further order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstance of the case otherwise the Applicants shall suffer irreparable loss and injury."

¶12

The facts of the case are that the opposite party no.2 moved an application dated 08.01.2023 under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. before the court concerned with the prayers that appropriate orders be passed for lodging a report and investigation of the same. The said application was rejected vide order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the CJM, Bareilly. Against the said order, a revision was preferred by

¶13

the opposite party no.2/informant/complainant before the Sessions Court which was allowed vide judgment and order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Additional Session Judge, Court No.2, Bareilly. The revisional court has allowed the said revision, quashed the order dated 06.07.2023 passed by the concerned court and remanded the matter back for passing fresh order in accordance with law. Further, the revisional court directed the parties to appear before the court concerned on 09.02.2024.

¶14

The only submission of learned counsel for the applicants is that they are aggrieved by the direction of the revisional court by which the parties have been directed to appear before the court concerned and it is submitted that the applicants are the proposed accused and a direction be issued for not appearing before the court of Magistrate since the court is still to pass an order on the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. subsequent to the remand of the matter by the revisional court. It is submitted that the applicants thus have no locus at this stage to appear before the court concerned.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has been heard.

¶16

Perusal of the records goes to show that the application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. of the opposite party no.2 was rejected by the trial court against which a revision was preferred which was allowed and the revisional court directed the court concerned to pass appropriate orders. The parties in the revision being the proposed accused and the complainant had appeared before it as would appear from the first paragraph of the order of the revisional court. The grievance of the applicants as is being raised is to the effect that the order of the revisional court directs them to appear positively before the court concerned on a specific date and join the proceedings therein. The applicants are the proposed accused in the proceedings, it is their choice either to appear before the court concerned or not. As of now there is no order compelling their appearance and there cannot be any order as such at the stage of passing of an order on an application under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. compelling the presence of the proposed accused persons.

¶17

In view of the same, the petition is thus disposed of.

¶18

Order Date :- 8.7.2024/M. ARIF

¶19

(Samit Gopal, J.)

¶20

Digitally signed by :- MOHAMMAD ARIF High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Puran Chand Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Puran Chand Pathak and 2 Others v. State of U.P. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Taj Babu and 3 Others vs State of Up and Another

Mohd Azam vs State of Up 2 Others

Chirag Khurana vs State of U.P. and Another

Kailash Nath Gupta vs State of U.P. & 3 Others

Smt Pramod Tyagi and 2 Others vs State of Up and Another

Anil Mishra vs State of U.P. and Another